Robert Prudhomme

Three interesting 11/23 exchanges between Jesse Curry and reporters in the hall:

1.

A reporter asks Curry if Oswald has "admitted that he was in the building at the time the shots were fired".

Curry says "Yes" but then, as though thinking twice about this answer, follows up with a more qualified response:

"Well, we know he couldn't deny that, we have witnesses."

REPORTER: "But he did deny it, didn't he?"

CURRY: "He denies everything."

**

2.

Q: Did you say, Chief, that a policeman had seen him in the building?

CURRY: Yes

Q: After the shot was fired?

CURRY: Yes

Q: Why didn’t he arrest him then?

CURRY: Because the manager of the place told us that he was an employee, that he’s alright, he’s an employee.

Q: Did he look suspicious to the policeman at this point?

CURRY: I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building.

**

3.

Q. Does he say he was anywhere else at the time this was happening?

Again Curry seems hesitant to commit to a straight answer:

CURRY: I don’t know. He says he was at the building, he says he was there because he worked there.

**

Seems to me that Curry's answers are pointing to a front-of-house encounter between Oswald and Baker: a liminal place that is technically 'in the building', certainly 'at the building'--but not really inside the building.

Curry cannot quite say that Oswald is 'admitting' to being 'in the building'.

Nor however can he quite say that Oswald is denying being 'in the building'.

If Curry is aware that Oswald has been naming a place like the domino room or the second-floor office area, then Curry's markedly ambiguous answers do not make sense.

If however Curry is aware that Oswald has been naming the front steps or front entrance or vestibule/lobby area, then Curry's ambiguous answers do make sense.

Especially as his words about the policeman "checking everyone he saw as he went into the building" seal the deal:

Front-of-house.

Chief Curry definitely seemed to be the weak link in the DPD chain. We are eternally thankful for his loose lips.

Robert wrote:

"There most definitely is a jump in the Towner film. It shows up in the frame preceding the black "squiggle" that prevents us from seeing JFK. This Youtube slow motion gif shows it quite nicely. Judging by how far JFK moves for each frame, in this frame by frame gif, itappears that precisely one frame has been removed from the Towner film".

Thanks for the link Robert.

I have since done some web surfing on the Towner film. The splice in the film has indeed been discussed on several internet venues.

As you said above, the consensus appears to be that one frame is missing, which would explain the "jump".

Have you been able to correlate the Towner splice with the melted frames in the Hughes film?

Hello Richard

Sadly, I lack the talent and the expensive equipment to perform such a correlation between the two films. I often post such things in the hopes that someone with more capability than I will take the time to do the in depth work.

From watching slow motion versions of both films, the timing of the missing frame and "squiggle" in the Towner film seems to be extremely close to the timing of the "melted" frames in the Hughes film.

BTW, what do you think of the rear door of the 4th car in the motorcade (white Ford sedan) being open on Houston St., as seen in the Hughes film, long before it is seen to be open in Altgens 6?

I'm not saying I subscribe to this theory, but if the "jump" or "squiggle" in Towner correlates time-wise with the "melted frames" in Hughes, an obvious inference that could be made is that there was a shot taken at that time. I suppose the argument would be that that was why Towner "flinched" right then and that's also why the Hughes film got "melted" right there from repeated slow motion / stop action viewings of those frames, or, perhaps, even intentionally.

--Tommy

All very real possibilities. However, the oddity in the Towner film I do not believe can be ascribed to Towner flinching. In viewing the super-slow motion, frame by frame gif of the Towner film I linked to, Towner's camera stays locked onto JFK. As each frame unfolds, seconds apart, JFK moves forward an equal distance. In the frame immediately prior to the "squiggle", JFK simply seems to move twice as far as the other space intervals reveal. Quite simply put, one frame appears to be missing, nothing more.

What are your thoughts on the rear door of the 4th car (white Ford sedan) being seen to be open on Houston St.? This is the first time I spotted this in the Hughes film. I believed, up until now, that the SS agent had opened this door only on Elm St. and in response to rifle shots.

Robert,

I believe it was SOP for Johnson's Secret Service followup car to have that door open when traveling in a motorcade on surface streets. I think I've seen a photo that shows that door open when the car was on Main Street or some other street in Dallas on 11/22/63.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong!

--Tommy

I'd like to see other photos of this. Do you recall where you heard it was SOP for the Secret Service to have the rear door open on Johnson's followup car? Who else was in this car?

Robert wrote:

"There most definitely is a jump in the Towner film. It shows up in the frame preceding the black "squiggle" that prevents us from seeing JFK. This Youtube slow motion gif shows it quite nicely. Judging by how far JFK moves for each frame, in this frame by frame gif, itappears that precisely one frame has been removed from the Towner film".

Thanks for the link Robert.

I have since done some web surfing on the Towner film. The splice in the film has indeed been discussed on several internet venues.

As you said above, the consensus appears to be that one frame is missing, which would explain the "jump".

Have you been able to correlate the Towner splice with the melted frames in the Hughes film?

Hello Richard

Sadly, I lack the talent and the expensive equipment to perform such a correlation between the two films. I often post such things in the hopes that someone with more capability than I will take the time to do the in depth work.

From watching slow motion versions of both films, the timing of the missing frame and "squiggle" in the Towner film seems to be extremely close to the timing of the "melted" frames in the Hughes film.

BTW, what do you think of the rear door of the 4th car in the motorcade (white Ford sedan) being open on Houston St., as seen in the Hughes film, long before it is seen to be open in Altgens 6?

I'm not saying I subscribe to this theory, but if the "jump" or "squiggle" in Towner correlates time-wise with the "melted frames" in Hughes, an obvious inference that could be made is that there was a shot taken at that time. I suppose the argument would be that that was why Towner "flinched" right then and that's also why the Hughes film got "melted" right there from repeated slow motion / stop action viewings of those frames, or, perhaps, even intentionally.

--Tommy

All very real possibilities. However, the oddity in the Towner film I do not believe can be ascribed to Towner flinching. In viewing the super-slow motion, frame by frame gif of the Towner film I linked to, Towner's camera stays locked onto JFK. As each frame unfolds, seconds apart, JFK moves forward an equal distance. In the frame immediately prior to the "squiggle", JFK simply seems to move twice as far as the other space intervals reveal. Quite simply put, one frame appears to be missing, nothing more.

What are your thoughts on the rear door of the 4th car (white Ford sedan) being seen to be open on Houston St.? This is the first time I spotted this in the Hughes film. I believed, up until now, that the SS agent had opened this door only on Elm St. and in response to rifle shots.

Bjorn, Larry, et al.

While I agree with the assessment that Price exhibited due diligence in asking those involved with the treatment afforded not only Kennedy and John Connally but also the mortally wounded Oswald when he was brought to Parkland on Sunday to commit their efforts to the written page, I do know that not everyone present and theoretically "involved" in these same efforts of care presented Price with a written account of their roles, regardless of how minor it may have been. Whether or not the historical record suffers to any great extent because of this is difficult to assess. In support of what Larry has already indicated, I personally contacted and interviewed both junior interns and nurses aides and students who were present at Parkland on that day regarding what, if anything, their role may have been, these overtures on my part initiated in conjunction with my work on the wounding of John Connally. In the main most observations were just that, observations of bystanders close to the event, though there was one exception of potentially great importance. However, what I have found interesting is that in examining the Price record, both as submitted to the Warren Commission and as originally gathered by the Secret Service, one glaring omission stands out. Nurse Jeanette Standridge was very involved with the initial care and treatment afforded John Connally. However, when one searches this Price record for her account all you will find is her written report of what she was involved in on November 24th regarding the admission and care attempts to save Oswald's life; there appears to be no surviving written record prepared by Ms. Standridge indicating just what she was involved in during the care afforded John Connally, this even though there are numerous indications from others who present their accounts of PMH maneuverings on November 22nd that mention Standridge. And while it is true that Standridge was eventually deposed by Arlen Specter, there remains no handwritten/typed account prepared by Standridge of just what she did on November 22nd. If nothing else she was and remains an important link in the chain of possession for the clothing of John Connally, not to mention certain personal items that were found in the Connally clothing itself.

FWIW

Gary Murr

Is Ms. Standridge still alive?

Robert wrote:

"There most definitely is a jump in the Towner film. It shows up in the frame preceding the black "squiggle" that prevents us from seeing JFK. This Youtube slow motion gif shows it quite nicely. Judging by how far JFK moves for each frame, in this frame by frame gif, itappears that precisely one frame has been removed from the Towner film".

Thanks for the link Robert.

I have since done some web surfing on the Towner film. The splice in the film has indeed been discussed on several internet venues.

As you said above, the consensus appears to be that one frame is missing, which would explain the "jump".

Have you been able to correlate the Towner splice with the melted frames in the Hughes film?

Hello Richard

Sadly, I lack the talent and the expensive equipment to perform such a correlation between the two films. I often post such things in the hopes that someone with more capability than I will take the time to do the in depth work.

From watching slow motion versions of both films, the timing of the missing frame and "squiggle" in the Towner film seems to be extremely close to the timing of the "melted" frames in the Hughes film.

BTW, what do you think of the rear door of the 4th car in the motorcade (white Ford sedan) being open on Houston St., as seen in the Hughes film, long before it is seen to be open in Altgens 6?

What, none of them are airing "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"? Or "Rush to Judgement"?!

Hang on a minute, I'll check the list.

Uhh...nope.

Educational TV at its finest. A person would likely spend his time in a more productive manner watching Bugs Bunny cartoons.

Anyone ever notice, in the beginning of the Hughes film, that the rear door of the 4th car in the lineup (the white car) is already opened? I thought it was a long held belief that the SS agent never opened this door until the white car had turned onto Elm St. and the SS agent had heard the rifle shots.

Why would the SS agent have opened the door halfway down Houston St.? Are there pictures of this door being opened anywhere else along the motorcade route?

We see Lovelady shielding his eyes from the sunlight.

But is he also reacting to something just behind him and to his right (the Prayer Man position)?*

Just after these frames, Lovelady will move across noticeably to his left (ie east).

Here, for context, is the longer loop from Hughes:

*(Credit for Hughes film gifs: Gerda Dunckel)

Richard,

These gifs from the Hughes film may explain some of the movements on the steps which are not evident in the Towner film.

Bjørn

Thanks, Bjørn.

Is it just me, or does the Towner film have a "jump" in it?

There most definitely is a jump in the Towner film. It shows up in the frame preceding the black "squiggle" that prevents us from seeing JFK. This Youtube slow motion gif shows it quite nicely. Judging by how far JFK moves for each frame, in this frame by frame gif, itappears that precisely one frame has been removed from the Towner film.

Coincidentally, the oddity in the Hughes film, which appears to be one or two melted frames, seems to occur with JFK's limo in almost the same location turning onto Elm St.

[photos deleted to conserve bandwidth]

It's the right side of the head above the ear, where Hill has pointed it out every time he's been asked to do so.

That Anthony thought it was the back of the head only serves to prove my point--that people often confuse the side of the head above the ear with the back of the head, or call the side of the head above the ear the back of the head.

Pat,

IMHO, the fact that you can't see the tips of any of his fingers suggests that the area he's describing is more on the back of his head than on the side.

--Tommy

Not at all. His fingers are mostly above his ear. That his index finger is a bit further back, and closer to the back of the head than the wound shown on the autopsy photos is not much of a surprise either. Hill has always put it there. His recollection is of a wound further back than the wound shown in the autopsy photos. He is off by an inch or so.

Some very silly people have taken this, however, to mean that Hill thinks the autopsy photos are fake, and that the wound he saw was really on the far back of Kennedy's head, below the level of his ear.

And that's just blithering...

Are you British, Pat?

It is my opinion that when Wesley and Linnie are brought in to DPD they are TOLD what they need to say.... just like Bledsoe, Whaley and many others.

With Wesley possible in ALOT of trouble for his rifle and involvement, I BELIEVE they did what they were told to to stay out of trouble.

This particular morning they are going thru a process they NEVER went thru... Wesley always went over to pick Oswald up... yet THIS TIME he walks with a rifle in a bag over to Wesley's ???

Please.

Your reference to the rifle in the paper bag made me do some thinking. I have a Model 70 Winchester bolt action rifle, with a telescopic sight, which is similar in length and weight to the Model 91/38 Carcano found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

I disassembled my Winchester and put the pieces into a paper bag I made from heavy wrapping paper and tape, just to see how it would work. I held the bag by the top end, as LHO allegedly did, and tried walking with it.

The first thing I noticed is just how much noise the disassembled pieces made clattering against each other. Then, and not really much to my surprise, the bottom of the bag let go from the tape and the parts fell out the bottom.

I would like to see someone disassemble a Carcano with a side mounted scope and try carrying it any distance in a paper bag made to the specs of the one LHO was supposed to have made.

In studying the Prayer Man figure, it's important to be aware that there is a lady standing just in front of him:

Hello Sean

I've just been reading the 135 pages of debate over Prayer Man over to the JFK Assassination Forum. You are about as popular there as I am, which makes you all right in my books.

Still fascinated with one of Baker's versions of his encounter with Oswald:

"The man who said he was the building superintendent was outside and met me at the door and went in with me. Shortly after I entered the building I confronted Oswald. The man who identified himself as the superintendent said that Oswald was all right, that he was employed there. We left Oswald there, and the supervisor showed me the way upstairs. We couldn't get anyone to send the freight elevator down. In giving the place a quick check, I found nothing that seemed out of the ordinary, so I started back to see what had happened. Not knowing for sure what had happened, I was limited in what I could legally do."

C'mon, Mr. Baker, is it Door No. 1, Door No. 2 or Door No. 3 ??

I was only giving possible examples. I'm fully aware of calibers and their origins. I've been a published writer in the firearms field since the mid70's.

I don't believe any of the official evidence. We have routinely lied to. The reason we know what know from the official record is the sloppiness or stupidity of those in possession of it.

So. We're all going to live forever?

Once those who were alive when JFK was murdered are gone it will all turn to idle speculation

You're a published writer in the firearms field and you don't know the difference between a .243 and a .25-06?

Guys,if JFK was shot by a 6mm it was probably .25-06 or.243, not an MC. We're wasting valuable time. When they control the collection submission of evidence To the WC where they knew no serious investigation would be done

If Oswald. was a lone nut and Ruby a small time strip club owner, why seal the files for such a long time.

A .243 is not a 6.5mm or .257. This is one of those confusing designations and gets this from its parent calibre, the .308.

The .308 is actually a .30 calibre rifle, shooting the same bullet as the .30-06. As its rifling grooves are .004" deep on each side, .004" + .004" + .300" = .308". The same is true of the .243, which uses a necked down .308 brass cartridge. Its groove and bullet diameter are both .243" while its bore diameter or "calibre" is .237".

Time we have lots of.

Pat

Have you ever seen an entrance wound made by a 6.5mm (.257 calibre) bullet?

P.S. Do you know why we don't use full metal jacket bullets for hunting?

"The autopsy protocols of those dying from 6.5 mm bullet wounds to the head follow. These refer to the bullets as .25 caliber, which wasn't quite true. According to Bolt Action Rifles, by Fred de Haas and Wayne Zwoll, "much erroneous information circulated about that "small caliber Jap rifle" during WWII, with many believing its 6.5 mm bullets, which were .263 caliber, to be only .25 caliber. These protocols have been arranged in order of shot distance. For the sake of brevity, references to wounds other than head wounds have been removed."

This information is incorrect. The calibre of all 6.5mm rifles is actually .257 (.25 calibre). The .263" referred to by de Haas and Zwoll is actually the diameter of the bullet. North American .257 calibre rifles shoot a bullet .264" in diameter. The 6.5mm Carcano is unique amongst 6.5mm (.257) rifles in that it fires a bullet .268" in diameter.

Just because someone writes a book does not mean that he knows his butt from his elbow.

Pat

Have you ever seen an entrance wound made by a 6.5mm (.257 calibre) bullet?

I believe the only thing more fantastic than the pristine condition of CE399 is the fantasy that it was able to pass between the ulna and radius bone of Connally's forearm, from the back side to the palm side, without hitting Connally's ulna bone.

Unless Connally was severely doublejointed in his elbows, there is simply no way his forearm could have turned to the point that a bullet, exiting below his right nipple, could have passed between these two bones.

I am simply astounded at how many researchers have completely ignored this small detail. If looked at closely, this alone is the deal breaker that totally debunks the Magic Bullet.

Our friend Dave seems to be a true believer. Perhaps he can demonstrate for us how CE 399 passed between these two bones in Connally's forearm.

Pat

I have read the original notes on the Tom Robinson interview and I do not understand what you mean by "A lot of stuff has been added on to Tom Robinson's statements over the years". Mr. Robinson quite clearly stated in his interview that the hole in JFK's temple was approximately 1/4" in diameter. Last time I checked, a 6.5mm Carcano bullet was also approximately 1/4" in diameter.

If it was not a through and through hole, why would Mr. Robinson so clearly state it was an exit wound from inside the skull? He also tells a rather confusing story in which an FBI agent present at the autopsy, claiming to be a ballistics expert, told Mr. Robinson the large gaping wound in the rear of JFK's head was an entry wound and the small 1/4" wound in the temple was an exit wound. Utter nonsense, of course, as, if anything, the reverse ould be true. What surprises me is that Mr. Robinson seems to accept this information from the FBI "ballistics expert" as Gospel. Surely, a man in his trade would have encountered through and through bullet wounds before, and would know that exit wounds tend to be much larger.

From patspeer.com:

Well, then, what about the entrance on the front of the head observed by Robinson? Certainly, Robinson's recollection of THAT wound is important. Well, WHAT entrance on the front of the head? He saw no such thing.

Here is his discussion with Purdy of the wound he observed.

PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may not have been artificially caused, that is caused by something other than the autopsy?

ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.

PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound.

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?

ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side.

PURDY: On his right side?

ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes.

PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?

ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples.

PURDY: Approximately what size?

ROBINSON: Very small, about a quarter of an inch.

PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?

ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything, I just would have probably put a little wax in it.

When asked later what he thought caused this wound, moreover, he claimed "I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel." When then asked if that was the only place he thought a bullet could have exited, he repeated "It was no bullet. It was a fragment or a piece of the bone." When then asked yet again--for once and for all--what he thought caused the wound, he reiterated "A piece of the bone or metal exiting."

So, Robinson did not call this wound an entrance, nor think it was an entrance. No, he believed it to have been an exit for a very small fragment of some sort, or perhaps even a mark created by shrapnel. This is NOT the description of an entrance hole for an explosive round so many pretend it is, nor a bullet hole of any kind.

Heck, it was a wound so small that Robinson wasn't even sure he put wax in it.

So why pretend otherwise?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pat

Have you ever seen an entrance wound made by a 6.5mm (.257 calibre) bullet?

Robert, if you read Robinson's words--his words--not mine---you will see that he specifies that what he saw was not a bullet entrance, and may have just been a shrapnel wound. Robinson, as a mortician, had almost certainly seen some bullet wounds. As a cosmetician, he'd almost certainly noted the abrasion collars apparent at bullet entrances. Apparently, he noted no such collar on this wound. In fact, when one realizes that he said this may have been a shrapnel wound, it becomes clear he failed to note the through and through hole one would expect to find at a bullet's entrance.

Now, you can convince yourself what you like... but those wishing to believe Robinson saw a bullet's entrance should not go around saying Tom Robinson said he saw an entrance wound on Kennedy's forehead or some such thing, when he specified that he saw no such thing. Can we at least agree on that?

Pat

Have you ever seen an entrance wound made by a 6.5mm (.257 calibre) bullet?

Pat

Have you ever seen an entrance wound made by a 6.5mm (.257 calibre) bullet?

President Kennedy WAS HIT IN THE HEAD after Z313.

As for the source of that entrance wound, although he didn't know the autopsy doctors had missed it, the young mortician who pieced JFK's head back together after the autopsy said that there was a small, thin pencil sized wound above JFK's right eye just above the hair line. If they would have shaved JFK's hair, as they would have done in a proper autopsy, that wound would have been immediately recognized, but because they didn't look for it they didn't record it.

I don't think this is accurate, Bill. A lot of stuff has been added on to Tom Robinson's actual statements over the years, and I suspect you've been exposed to some of it. Robinson, to my recollection, said he saw a tiny wound on Kennedy which he thought was created either by bullet shrapnel from the outside, or a small bullet or bone fragment coming from the inside. This divot was not as large as a pencil, and was not a through and through hole through the skull, as one would expect from a bullet wound. Robinson was, in fact, quite dismissive of it, and thought he put a bit of wax in it, if anything.

Pat

I have read the original notes on the Tom Robinson interview and I do not understand what you mean by "A lot of stuff has been added on to Tom Robinson's statements over the years". Mr. Robinson quite clearly stated in his interview that the hole in JFK's temple was approximately 1/4" in diameter. Last time I checked, a 6.5mm Carcano bullet was also approximately 1/4" in diameter.

If it was not a through and through hole, why would Mr. Robinson so clearly state it was an exit wound from inside the skull? He also tells a rather confusing story in which an FBI agent present at the autopsy, claiming to be a ballistics expert, told Mr. Robinson the large gaping wound in the rear of JFK's head was an entry wound and the small 1/4" wound in the temple was an exit wound. Utter nonsense, of course, as, if anything, the reverse ould be true. What surprises me is that Mr. Robinson seems to accept this information from the FBI "ballistics expert" as Gospel. Surely, a man in his trade would have encountered through and through bullet wounds before, and would know that exit wounds tend to be much larger.

Quote from Sean Murphy:

"•He subsequently noticed that Oswald was gone and, not realising that Oswald had actually been at the front entrance for the motorcade itself, erroneously assumed that he and the officer had seen him just as he was coming out to the front entrance."

As Truly was not on the front steps of the TSBD during the passing of the motorcade, what would make him think Oswald had not been on the steps the entire time?

Or the 3rd, 4th or 5th floors.

Would Truly and Lumpkin have been embarrassed if Oswald had wandered down from the 5th floor with a book order he had been working on? They didn't exactly track his whereabouts after seeing him on the 2nd floor.